[Spacewalk-list] Kickstarting a RHEL5 install - better with updates included or not?

[Paul Robert Marino]

I've actually thought of doing something simmilar with sattelite-sync
betwean instances in the various environments.
On Nov 21, 2012 2:48 PM, "Jens Skott" <jens.skott at schibsted.se> wrote:

> I have 3 different environments cloned off the original repo, testing
> stagning and prod. I then use the orignial repo to sync the new errata
> and packages, then test stage and prod are "frozen" repos witch i
> update depending on my lifecycle plan.
> I then kickstart a server from a singel profile (bare minimal 300mb
> footprint) then add activationkeys in cobbler depending on prod test
> or stage.
> After I have kickstarted a machine I go over to using chef, where I
> handle all application configuration and installation using rpm
> packages from the different repos.
>
> Hope that helps you a little. I can assist you further with explaning
> in detail if you find it intresting and want to practice the setup i
> use for my environment =)
>
> Jens Skott
> Tel: +46-8-5142 4396
> Schibsted Centralen IT
>
>
>
> 2012/11/21 Paul Robert Marino <prmarino1 at gmail.com>:
> > Actually the install from spacewalk with all the updates is cleaner
> > because there is no chance an old package might have left artifacts
> > behind.
> > Although admittedly there are several schools of thought on this some
> > prefer to do the updates manually others prefer the updates done in
> > the install and there is still an other school of thought that if say
> > you are rebuilding a host it should have the exact same rpm versions
> > as the original and no additional updates.
> > none of them are completely right or wrong its more of a matter of
> > preference then any thing else.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Snyder, Chris <Chris_Snyder at sra.com>
> wrote:
> >> Looking for some opinions here.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I’ve got SW 1.8 working with RHEL5 now (thank you, J. Pazdziora) and
> have a
> >> kickstart profile uses three channels for initial package installation:
> core
> >> RHEL5 packages (from the ISO), all current RHEL5 updates so when all is
> said
> >> and done, I have a host ready to roll with no need for updates to be
> >> applied.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Is this the best way to build a host?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I don’t have any particular reason for this, but I have a gut feeling
> that a
> >> better way to build a host might be to ONLY use the core RHEL5 ISO
> packages
> >> and the spacewalk-client packages for initial host creation, then
> register
> >> the host with my RHEL5 update channel, and then apply any needed updates
> >> (could be done in a %post section).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The second option seems ‘cleaner’ from the stand point of it mimics
> building
> >> a host from an ISO and then applying updates, whereas the first does
> >> everything at once.  Theoretically the end result should be the same.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Thx
> >>
> >> Chris.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Chris Snyder
> >>
> >> SRA Senior Linux Geek
> >> Energystar Network O+M Team
> >> ESTAR Issues: https://estar18.energystar.gov/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Spacewalk-list mailing list
> >> Spacewalk-list at redhat.com
> >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Spacewalk-list mailing list
> > Spacewalk-list at redhat.com
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
>
> _______________________________________________
> Spacewalk-list mailing list
> Spacewalk-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/spacewalk-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/spacewalk-list/attachments/20121121/7840ae23/attachment.htm>